Panniel v. Diaz

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in which her car was struck by an ambulance. She prevailed in anarbitration proceeding in which she pursued insurance benefits from her personal injury protection insurer. She also filed a lawsuit against the driver of the ambulance and its owner, a hospital. She filed a motion for partial summary judgment based on the arbitrator’s finding that amputation of her toes was proximately caused by the accident.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Even if the party asserting collateral estoppel has established all of its required elements, there are exceptions to its application if: (1) there is a clear and convincing need for a new determination of the issue because of the potential adverse impact of the determination on the public interest or interests of other persons; (2) it was not foreseeable at the time of the first action that the issue would arise in a subsequent action; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted did not have sufficient opportunity for a full and fair adjudication in the first action.

Facts.

Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in which her car was struck by an ambulance. She prevailed in an arbitration proceeding in which she pursued insurance benefits from her personal injury protection insurer. She also filed a lawsuit against the driver of the ambulance and its owner, a hospital, to recover additional damages beyond those paid by the insurer, as well as compensation for nonmedical expenses and damages for pain and suffering.  She filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit, seeking to preclude Defendants from relitigating the issue of causation with regard to the accident and amputation and of her toes.

Issue.

Were Defendants precluded from relitigating the issue of causation regarding the accident and the amputation and of Plaintiff’s toes by application of teh doctrine of collateral estoppel?

Held.

No. There was a clear and convincing need for a new determination in the lawsuit as to whether the injury and subsequent amputation of Plaintiff’s toes was caused by the accident.

Discussion.

There was a clear and convincing need for a new determination of the causation issue because of the potential adverse impact of the determination on the public interest, due to potential “ripple effects” in the insurance industry, and because the parties against whom collateral estoppel was asserted did not have sufficient opportunity for a full and fair adjudication in the first action; their goals were not completely synonymous with those of the insurer in the arbitration proceeding.